Once upon a climate March 24, 2010

It is rather sad, and pathetic, that we have to go to the British press to find robust investigative reporting about the theory of man-made global warming. Apart from this country’s national newspaper, The Australian, you could almost believe that the mantra that “the science is settled”, is true. If you follow the line of the ABC and much of the mainstream press, to question the science of climate-change is to be un-Australian and un-Earth. Well, the science isn’t settled — not by a long shot — and the battle continues.

Having been mugged at Copenhagen, embarrassed out of their wits by the scandal that was Himalaya-glacier-Gate, and facing a planet that doesn’t seem to want to respond to the dire predictions of the most learned­ — the lads and lasses at the IPCC have been desperate in their attempts to block the rising tide of public sceptisism. So we have waited, with our breath bated, for a indication as to how they will deal with a growing, non-believing public.

Apart from the “science is settled” spin, which is code for “don’t question us”, the other side of the debate has been the “Outrageous-Claims Department”. This is where the dedicated followers of climate let pass for science any outrageous claim made by any of their front-line “experts”. Al Gore, Tim Flannery, James Hansen, Penny Wong, Kevin Rudd and Dr Pachauri. What do you do when scientists and political leaders blindly allow false claims to go uncorrected. When they must know that there isn’t a “new” change-in-climate because the climate has always changed. It’s what climate does. Sea-levels have always risen or dropped, ice-caps have always built up or shrunk, river systems have always developed, and in certain periods in history, just simply disappeared.

Like this:

Related

Science is never settled – that’s one fundamental fact that makes scienc what it is. However, form time to time one or more scientists come up with a theory that is tested by their peers and seems to be a reasonable explanation for observed events. In the case of climate change the number of scientists agreeing with the theory of man-made global warming far exceeds the number who remain to be convinced.
Of course changes on the surface of the sun effect the cimate here on earth and the other planets in our solar system. That’s an old theory that few, if any, challenge. But the amount of warming taking place in recent years far exceeds what could be caused by the observable changes in the sun. It also seems to follow a similar pattern to measurable changes in the volume of CO2 and other gases released nto the atmosphere by human activity. These gases have been demonstrated to have the effect of increasing the ability of the atmosphere to counteract the cooling effect of radiation from the earth’s surface. I know of no-one in the scientific community that challenges these facts.
What is much harder to do is to forecast future trends based on past observations – this is true of everything, not just global warming. So some people got their sums wrong, or deliberately over-stated the possible future outcome. That doesn’t mean that something outwith our previous experience is not happening.
But, suppose the climate change prophets of doom are wrong. What can be lost by taking action to reduce the amount of CO2 and other gases being released into the atmosphere?
Moreover, the earth has only so much fossil fuel. We cannot go on burning it forever. As with predicitions about future climate change, predicitoins about precisely when the oil will run out have been wrong in the past. But it will happen. It makes sense to take actions now that anticipate and mitigate against that fact.
Finally, oil is not used only for fuel. That’s what most attempts to tackle the problem concentrate on, because of what is seen as the urgency of preventing or limiting future climate change. But far more crude oil is used in the production of things we take for granted – from synthetic textiles to computer housings and automobile parts – than ever gets into your gas tank or furnace.
It’s a precious resource, we need to protect it.
Not long ago people thought asbestos was safe. People are dying today because business got that wrong, saying that the whistle blowers were talking nonsense. And those businesses are paying out $billions in compensation and wishing they’d listened.
I’d much rather be safe than sorry!